I've never been a member of any organized religion, nor did we have any "scriptures" in my house. Socialist schooling system left that one out, meaning if you wan't to go to church, go ahead, but it was not in the culture, so no indoctrination.

And not really talking about the fear induced religious experience, sure it happens, but the observence that there is more to life then mechanics of it.

What did happen to me when I got out was that sense that all life is connected in a way that is not quantifiable by measuring instruments.
As for social and cultural aspect of it, let's say it like this, if I could, I'd convert to a Dakota. Or something.

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss. If you doubt it, go visit an Army or Marine infantry unit when their chaplain is offering a prayer shortly before they go into a major attack, and count how many people voluntarily did not attend.

I'm an atheist and have been since about age 18, but I have no shame about telling you that I have prayed in earnest to God on numerous occasions.

Look for the Military Association of Atheist and Freethinkers' website and tell them how there are "no atheists in foxholes". I'm sure they'll have a good laugh about it too.

That's a strawman. I didn't say "there are no atheists in foxholes". I said, "My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss."

If you want to argue against what I've said, argue against what I've actually said, not what your brain is programmed to respond to or what you wish I had said. What I actually said is sitting right there in black and white.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

I can personally tell you, even though my personal experience is statistically insignificant, that i've had family die, my mother was ill a couple years ago and i've had some scares, but i haven't turned to the supernatural. i've been an atheist almost as long as i've been an asantaclausist and i don't see that changing based on an irrational inclination to pray to the fairy god daddy.

Then I guess you're not part of that "nearly everybody". However, go charge a fortified position or sit through an artillery barrage, and then we'll talk.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

PS: I should also tell you my tolerance for trolling is pretty high, so i doubt i'll lose my composure easily.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you starting to "lose your composure" or something? Over what? _________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

1My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss.2.aIf you doubt it, go visit an Army or Marine infantry unit when their chaplain is offering a prayer shortly before they go into a major attack, and count how many people voluntarily did not attend.

I'm an atheist and have been since about age 18, but I have no shame about telling you that I have prayed in earnest to God on numerous occasions.

Look for the Military Association of Atheist and Freethinkers' website and tell them how there are "no atheists in foxholes". I'm sure they'll have a good laugh about it too.

2.bThat's a strawman. I didn't say "there are no atheists in foxholes". I said, "My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss."

3If you want to argue against what I've said, argue against what I've actually said, not what your brain is programmed to respond to or what you wish I had said. What I actually said is sitting right there in black and white.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

I can personally tell you, even though my personal experience is statistically insignificant, that i've had family die, my mother was ill a couple years ago and i've had some scares, but i haven't turned to the supernatural. i've been an atheist almost as long as i've been an asantaclausist and i don't see that changing based on an irrational inclination to pray to the fairy god daddy.

Then I guess you're not part of that "nearly everybody". 2.cHowever, go charge a fortified position or sit through an artillery barrage, and then we'll talk.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

PS: I should also tell you my tolerance for trolling is pretty high, so i doubt i'll lose my composure easily.

I have no idea what you're talking about. 4Are you starting to "lose your composure" or something? Over what?

1. Appeal to probability.

2. It's the same "no atheists in foxholes" stuff, i just beat you to it.

Alse, while it's probably true that there are Democrats that share this view/belief, the ones that like to talk about supporting and believing this nonsense seem to be overwhelmingly Republicans.

Yes, your beloved short bus riding, helmet wearing, corked fork using democrats are the model of enlightened logical thought._________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P. J. O'Rourke

I did use the definition of young earth creationism and i accept that, that's why i referred to "intelligent design". I doubt you care about the reason i went with those, but if you want to know, ask me. Now, the only deists i've heard speaking, in debates on youtube, believed in the prime mover hypothesis, not in the creation myth. I don't know how accurate that is, but those are examples i have.

And last point, i don't support politicians. If you have any example of a Democrat saying x scientific theory is "lies straight from the pit of hell" or something similar, let me know and i'll complain about him/her too.

PS: Not arguing for the sake of arguing, it's just that the discussion drifted away from what you brought up 8 pages ago. And, in fact, this page isn't even related to most of the last 7.

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

1My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss.2.aIf you doubt it, go visit an Army or Marine infantry unit when their chaplain is offering a prayer shortly before they go into a major attack, and count how many people voluntarily did not attend.

I'm an atheist and have been since about age 18, but I have no shame about telling you that I have prayed in earnest to God on numerous occasions.

Look for the Military Association of Atheist and Freethinkers' website and tell them how there are "no atheists in foxholes". I'm sure they'll have a good laugh about it too.

2.bThat's a strawman. I didn't say "there are no atheists in foxholes". I said, "My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss."

3If you want to argue against what I've said, argue against what I've actually said, not what your brain is programmed to respond to or what you wish I had said. What I actually said is sitting right there in black and white.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

I can personally tell you, even though my personal experience is statistically insignificant, that i've had family die, my mother was ill a couple years ago and i've had some scares, but i haven't turned to the supernatural. i've been an atheist almost as long as i've been an asantaclausist and i don't see that changing based on an irrational inclination to pray to the fairy god daddy.

Then I guess you're not part of that "nearly everybody". 2.cHowever, go charge a fortified position or sit through an artillery barrage, and then we'll talk.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

PS: I should also tell you my tolerance for trolling is pretty high, so i doubt i'll lose my composure easily.

I have no idea what you're talking about. 4Are you starting to "lose your composure" or something? Over what?

1. Appeal to probability.

That's not what an appeal to probability is. You shouldn't use words you don't understand. I'm starting to see a pattern here. You're one of those people, like sugar, or worse, mcgruff, who just blurts shit out because you think saying something (anything) is better than saying nothing. Let me save you some painful life lessons: it's not.

An appeal to probability is when someone implies that a thing is so because it is highly probable. I did not do this at all. I merely stated my personal observation, in response to yours. I felt this was appropriate because I happen to believe Prenj has had some very real experiences relevant to what we're discussing, and my intuition is that you have not (other than your loss of a family member, which is actually not very traumatic unless it is sudden and unexpected).

GabrielYYZ wrote:

2. It's the same "no atheists in foxholes" stuff, i just beat you to it.

No, it's not. One is an absolute, and the other is a matter of degrees. Have you learned nothing in this thread? Also, my statement is based on my personal experience, and I can tell just from the brief exposure I've had to you that you've never been in the military, much less combat or a similar life-threatening situation (maybe you had to walk home through the wrong part of town once, or got beat up on the playground). In other words, I was trying to make the point (without bluntly saying it) that I suspect Prenj is not too interested in your speculations with respect to this particular thing, and neither am I.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

3. Stop repeating the same tired phrase, it's been 8 pages.

Yeah, it's been eight pages of you using strawmen. It's juvenile; it's a 7th grader level of argumentation, and the only time people use them is when they don't have a coherent argument against what was actually said. It's a waste of bandwidth and forum space and it increases your carbon footprint, and it pisses people off because they don't want to wade through pages and pages of mindless babble. By now, you ought to have more in your logical repertoire. Stop doing it and you'll stop hearing about it. I suspect you are doing it without realizing it, because you're doing what I described earlier, not thinking, and just knee-jerking and blurting out the first pre-programmed thing that comes to mind.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

4. Over a god-fearing atheist apparently.

Ahhh.... I know what's going on. It's Friday night and you just did some major bong hits and got paranoid!

LOOK OUT!!!_________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

And last point, i don't support politicians. If you have any example of a Democrat saying x scientific theory is "lies straight from the pit of hell" or something similar, let me know and i'll complain about him/her too.

How about one going on and on about his concern that an island is going to capsize because of too many people on it. Does that count?_________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

That's not what an appeal to probability is. You shouldn't use words you don't understand. I'm starting to see a pattern here. You're one of those people, like sugar, or worse, mcgruff, who just blurts shit out because you think saying something (anything) is better than saying nothing. Let me save you some painful life lessons: it's not.

An appeal to probability is when someone implies that a thing is so because it is highly probable. I did not do this at all. I merely stated my personal observation, in response to yours. I felt this was appropriate because I happen to believe Prenj has had some very real experiences relevant to what we're discussing, and my intuition is that you have not (other than your loss of a family member, which is actually not very traumatic unless it is sudden and unexpected).

Quote:

Assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen

Feel free to refer to my programming, indoctrination, my failure to see beyond black and white thinking, how everything is a strawman, how those sites are probably blogs without credibility and i don't know what else. I won't even go into that other stuff, i officially give up, you're free to declare yourself the winner, a wise man once said you gotta know when to fold 'em and i still value my sanity.

That's not what an appeal to probability is. You shouldn't use words you don't understand. I'm starting to see a pattern here. You're one of those people, like sugar, or worse, mcgruff, who just blurts shit out because you think saying something (anything) is better than saying nothing. Let me save you some painful life lessons: it's not.

An appeal to probability is when someone implies that a thing is so because it is highly probable. I did not do this at all. I merely stated my personal observation, in response to yours. I felt this was appropriate because I happen to believe Prenj has had some very real experiences relevant to what we're discussing, and my intuition is that you have not (other than your loss of a family member, which is actually not very traumatic unless it is sudden and unexpected).

Quote:

Assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen

Feel free to refer to my programming, indoctrination, my failure to see beyond black and white thinking, how everything is a strawman, how those sites are probably blogs without credibility and i don't know what else. I won't even go into that other stuff, i officially give up, you're free to declare yourself the winner, a wise man once said you gotta know when to fold 'em and i still value my sanity.

Those sites reinforce what I just said. What you claimed here to be an appeal to probability was not.

If you'd relax and have an open mind, you wouldn't feel any threat to your "sanity". Take some deep breaths. You're just experiencing cognitive dissonance, that's all. It's natural when we realize something we have believed for a long time is wrong. Accepting and overcoming cognitive dissonance is a part of having an open mind, learning to think for yourself, engaging in intellectually honesty, and achieving objective enlightenment._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

what is it with you? You receive spanking after spanking, we're on page 9 and you still can't help but come back and ask for more?

Are you losing control of your emotions again? I suggest you take a break and simmer down. We're trying to have an adult conversation here, and every time you lose control, you end up getting a thread locked or a bunch of posts moved to the Island of Dr. Moreau._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

Those sites reinforce what I just said. What you claimed here to be an appeal to probability was not.

It's been 9 pages of you ignoring what the philosophical burden of proof is, rejecting the word evidence but accepting justification because of "terminology", disregarding everything that is said because it's "intelligentsia programming" without a single valid reason to do so and now, reading something that directly contradicts what you said and stating "that just reinforces what i said".

I'm sorry, i just can't "engaging in intellectually honesty" for 9 more pages until we find some "terminology" that isn't scary or intimidating to you. Mind you, it's 9 pages of a discussion, between two atheists, about whether religion is nonsensical or not. I don't know how you found out you were an atheist, but, for me, "god's word is the bible, the bible says god exists, therefore god exists" did it, every other religious claim so far seems to follow that model.

The only argument i've read so far, repeatedly, is "oh, but they might have a good idea someday, you shouldn't dismiss that possibility" and, while that is true, i don't see the point in calling nonsense something else until that good idea(s) comes to fruition.

So, you can keep repeating how i'm a bigot or stupid or anything else, i don't care, but that's not the way you prove someone wrong, that's just a mechanism for defending your own presuppositions.

Those sites reinforce what I just said. What you claimed here to be an appeal to probability was not.

It's been 9 pages of you ignoring what the philosophical burden of proof is, rejecting the word evidence but accepting justification because of "terminology", disregarding everything that is said because it's "intelligentsia programming" without a single valid reason to do so and now, reading something that directly contradicts what you said and stating "that just reinforces what i said".

No it hasn't. Once you stopped using the sophomoric arguments, prejudiced generalizations, and bigoted hyperbole of the uneducated and ignorant, such as "it's not science", "all religion is nonsense" and "anything not based on evidence is irrational", we reached agreement on everything except for the rationality of intuition, and agreed to disagree on that..

Now, you've had a brainwashing relapse or something.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

I'm sorry, i just can't "engaging in intellectually honesty" for 9 more pages until we find some "terminology" that isn't scary or intimidating to you. Mind you, it's 9 pages of a discussion, between two atheists, about whether religion is nonsensical or not. I don't know how you found out you were an atheist, but, for me, "god's word is the bible, the bible says god exists, therefore god exists" did it, every other religious claim so far seems to follow that model.

Another brain-dead generalization. Also, this is another strawman. We're not talking just about whether "religion" is nonsense. That is subject to equivocation on what the definition of religion is. This conversation started out with somebody mocking some 'tard who doesn't believe in evolution, but then somebody leaped from there to the idiocy of everyone who believes in god. What we're talking about here is whether or not a belief in a god can be rational and whether all people who have such a belief are worthy of ridicule.

I have, I think, demonstrated pretty clearly that some people's belief in god is well within the bounds of rational thought, and further, that people who think science is the end-all-be-all of rationality are just as ridiculous as people who are dogmatically religious. You participated in that discussion for nine pages, and you ultimately agreed (with the exception of my thought about even intuition being rational, which was ancillary and not essential to any other points).

Now, with that conversation essentially over, and you continuing a separate conversation with somebody else about whether people in a combat zone suddenly get religious (and he's referring to his personal experiences as young person trapped in the middle of one of the Eastern European wars of the '90s, by the way), you toss into the ring that this doesn't apply to all people.

I say, in my experience, it applies to nearly everyone (which also happens to be based on first-hand experiences during almost a decade as a combat arms Army officer in two zones of conflict). I acknowledged that you may well be one of those who don't fit into the "nearly everybody" but that the experience you describe was not particularly traumatic (like facing the threat of imminent death or a loved dying suddenly and unexpectedly).

Then all of a sudden, you appear to have some kind of cognitive dissonance seizure or something, and seem to take back everything you've said about agreeing, lapsing back into Brainwashed-Land, apparently once again declaring anything remotely religious to be crap, while mumbling incoherently about "losing your composure" and "hanging on to your sanity". Also, I never called you stupid.

I mean, seriously... what the fuck? _________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

No it hasn't. Once you stopped using the sophomoric arguments, prejudiced generalizations, and bigoted hyperbole of the uneducated and ignorant, such as "it's not science", "all religion is nonsense" and "anything not based on evidence is irrational", we reached agreement on everything except for the rationality of intuition, and agreed to disagree on that..

Now, you've had a brainwashing relapse or something.

Myself wrote:

Aside from that clarification, i agree this might be the most progress we'll make, so i'm perfectly fine with agreeing where we agree and agreeing to disagree on everything else for now, or else we'll keep going around in the same circles.

You can go back and re-read the posts, see where it is that we agree. I did agree that that was the most progress we were gonna make and that still stands.

BoneKracker wrote:

Another brain-dead generalization. Also, this is another strawman. We're not talking just about whether "religion" is nonsense. That is subject to equivocation on what the definition of religion is. This conversation started out with somebody mocking some 'tard who doesn't believe in evolution, but then somebody leaped from there to the idiocy of everyone who believes in god. What we're talking about here is whether or not a belief in a god can be rational and whether all people who have such a belief are worthy of ridicule.

1. I've asked you before, do you have an example of an idea about god that is rational? Or, at the very least, that we could discuss? i think i've said before that a belief is irrational until one can justify it. (i've said present evidence before but you seem to equate evidence with science).

2. I've never said they're worthy of ridicule and i don't think asking for justification is ridiculing. They're entitled to their beliefs, but i don't have to accept them. Just to clarify, criticizing an idea or belief != ridiculing all the people that hold those beliefs.

From the 1st page of this thread, feel free to change evidence for justification:

Myself wrote:

2. The day someone presents some evidence that, at least, hints at the existence of a spirit and i reject that, you can call me "anti-spiritual", until that day i'll keep referring to it as nonsense, thank you very much.

BoneKracker wrote:

I have, I think, demonstrated pretty clearly that some people's belief in god is well within the bounds of rational thought, and further, that people who think science is the end-all-be-all of rationality are just as ridiculous as people who are dogmatically religious. You participated in that discussion for nine pages, and you ultimately agreed (with the exception of my thought about even intuition being rational, which was ancillary and not essential to any other points).

1. No, what you demonstrated and i did agree with that, is that a person can use a valid logical argument to try and justify their belief in a god, you didn't demonstrate how that argument can be sound. Therein lies the rub, how can you justify that belief without, at least, a sound argument?

2. See above.

BoneKracker wrote:

Now, with that conversation essentially over, and you continuing a separate conversation with somebody else about whether people in a combat zone suddenly get religious (and he's referring to his personal experiences as young person trapped in the middle of one of the Eastern European wars of the '90s, by the way), you toss into the ring that this doesn't apply to all people.

I'd argue that this is a continuation of that conversation, since the essence is the same.

BoneKracker wrote:

I say, in my experience, it applies to nearly everyone (which also happens to be based on first-hand experiences during almost a decade as a combat arms Army officer in two zones of conflict). I acknowledged that you may well be one of those who don't fit into the "nearly everybody" but that the experience you describe was not particularly traumatic (like facing the threat of imminent death or a loved dying suddenly and unexpectedly).

I'll ask you the same thing i asked Prenj: are you implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs?

BoneKracker wrote:

Then all of a sudden, you appear to have some kind of cognitive dissonance seizure or something, and seem to take back everything you've said about agreeing, lapsing back into Brainwashed-Land, apparently once again declaring anything remotely religious to be crap, while mumbling incoherently about "losing your composure" and "hanging on to your sanity". Also, I never called you stupid.

I mean, seriously... what the fuck?

This is what i mean by:

Myself wrote:

It's been 9 pages of you ignoring what the philosophical burden of proof is, rejecting the word evidence but accepting justification because of "terminology", disregarding everything that is said because it's "intelligentsia programming" without a single valid reason to do so and now, reading something that directly contradicts what you said and stating "that just reinforces what i said".

Cognitive dissonance means having conflicting views, ideas or beliefs, can you point where you have seen this cognitive dissonance from my part? I can point to you praying to a god whose existence you, apparently, reject.

You can keep repeating how i'm a bigot or anything else, i don't care, but that's not the way you prove someone wrong, that's just a mechanism for defending your own presuppositions. There, i rephrased it so that i'm explicitly not putting words in your mouth(fingers).

No it hasn't. Once you stopped using the sophomoric arguments, prejudiced generalizations, and bigoted hyperbole of the uneducated and ignorant, such as "it's not science", "all religion is nonsense" and "anything not based on evidence is irrational", we reached agreement on everything except for the rationality of intuition, and agreed to disagree on that..

Now, you've had a brainwashing relapse or something.

Myself wrote:

Aside from that clarification, i agree this might be the most progress we'll make, so i'm perfectly fine with agreeing where we agree and agreeing to disagree on everything else for now, or else we'll keep going around in the same circles.

You can go back and re-read the posts, see where it is that we agree. I did agree that that was the most progress we were gonna make and that still stands.

So what's your point here, that you've changed your mind and now you want to keep going around in circles?

GabrielYYZ wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

Another brain-dead generalization. Also, this is another strawman. We're not talking just about whether "religion" is nonsense. That is subject to equivocation on what the definition of religion is. This conversation started out with somebody mocking some 'tard who doesn't believe in evolution, but then somebody leaped from there to the idiocy of everyone who believes in god. What we're talking about here is whether or not a belief in a god can be rational and whether all people who have such a belief are worthy of ridicule.

1. I've asked you before, do you have an example of an idea about god that is rational? Or, at the very least, that we could discuss? i think i've said before that a belief is irrational until one can justify it. (i've said present evidence before but you seem to equate evidence with science).

Yes, I realize it's semantics, but I have equated "evidence", in these discussions, with direct observation, probably because it is typically being brought up, as it was here, by somebody arguing that "science rules and everything else is nonsense". I apologize if that caused some confusion, but I think we are on the same page now, and have agreed that something can be rational as long as it is based on evidence or logically coherent (i.e., directly observed, deduced from that accepted as fact, or in the case of fuzzy logic, not relied upon to a degree inconsistent with its uncertainty). We agree that this renders the mythology and much of the dogma of organized religion "nonsense".

You ask here for an example, but we've been through this already a couple of times. I provided examples of people with various beliefs and their supporting logic, and described the conditions that would make such a belief rational or non-rational. One example was a guy who, knowing how little we really know about reality (e.g., unknown context of universe and big bang), says he believes there's a god because it's his experience that stable, ordered systems are usually the result of intent (it's just an example). I said somebody else might disagree, because it's their observation that such stable, ordered systems are always sub-systems of chaotic ones, the universe being the largest, and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says entropy is always increasing. The first guy then would say, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is explicitly only applicable to a closed system, and since the context of the universe is undefined, and argument that the Entropy of "all that exists" is always increasing is an argument that the universe is both a closed system and infinite. Etc. etc. The upshot of this example is that this guy's belief is rational to the extent it is supported by observation and logically coherent, and to the extent his reliance on this belief is not out of line with how likely it is. In this case, if we might say it is "somewhat likely" (i.e. not impossible, less than equally likely and unlikely), and if he's not doing something based on this belief that's out of line with something being "somewhat likely", he's being rational.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

2. I've never said they're worthy of ridicule and i don't think asking for justification is ridiculing. They're entitled to their beliefs, but i don't have to accept them. Just to clarify, criticizing an idea or belief != ridiculing all the people that hold those beliefs.

You called it "nonsense", referred to "pseudo-scientific religionists", and the like. I accept your last point, and I withdraw anything I said that indicated you were ridiculing people. I think others who participated in this thread do it regularly, though, and my remarks were not entirely aimed at you.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

From the 1st page of this thread, feel free to change evidence for justification:

You started off engrossed with the scientific method, saying this sort of thing:

Quote:

Speculating and theorizing about things is perfectly fine, but you need to be able to test the validity of your hypothesis, otherwise it becomes unsupported nonsense.

And then made progress and started saying this sort of thing:

Quote:

Observation is not the only standard of evidence and i've never said it is,

While we both know you can't prove or disprove a hypothesis with anything but observation. Then you made further progress:

Quote:

the burden of proof every claim has is that the person making the claim must justify it.

Quote:

i get your point about "observation or logic" and i would add "or mathematical proof or a coherent and compelling argument", these are all perfectly reasonable justifications, depending on the claim.

Then something apparently went *snap* in your head. Now you're quibbling over the difference between a "logical" argument and a "sound" argument, claiming you never meant that satisfying the burden proof as you laid out above meant that something was "sound".

Quote:

I'll ask you the same thing i asked Prenj: are you implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs?

Another strawman. Again: I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said or some bastardization of it that you think you can effectively argue against. If you'd actually like clarification of what I said, let me know.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

Cognitive dissonance means having conflicting views, ideas or beliefs, can you point where you have seen this cognitive dissonance from my part?

Okay, I'd say your cognitive dissonance comes from believing (on page 2 or whatever) that anything which cannot be proved by evidence and the testing of a hypothesis (an obvious reference to the scientific method) is "nonsense", and then seeing the light and realizing that rational human thought frequently involves uncertainty and can be "justified" merely by a "compelling argument" or "logic", which may even be fuzzy logic

GabrielYYZ wrote:

You can keep repeating how i'm a bigot or anything else, i don't care, but that's not the way you prove someone wrong, that's just a mechanism for defending your own presuppositions.

I apologize for calling you a bigot (by which I meant that your preceding argument was characteristic of a bigot). I was unjustly lumping you in with some other people in here who have voiced similar arguments. Having reviewed the thread, I see that you didn't actually belittle, malign, or denigrate anybody. So I apologize for using that word and I take it back.

However, I do want to point out that the primary reason that I, an atheist, get on people's cases about using generalizations like "religion" and "creationists" when they ridicule deserving people such as the guy in the article, is because it propagates incorrect beliefs which do result in unjustifiable intolerance and persecution of undeserving people (such as agnostics who don't rely heavily on what limited beliefs they might have about "higher powers" and such) and that herd people into artificial thought constraints (such as causing young people to believe that science has got things pretty much figured out or that the big bang theory explains existence, when the truth is probably closer to us being on the verge of a revelation analogous to the discovery that the Earth is round)._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

So what's your point here, that you've changed your mind and now you want to keep going around in circles?

It seems we're doing it anyways, so there's no point in me saying no.

BoneKracker wrote:

Yes, I realize it's semantics, but I have equated "evidence", in these discussions, with direct observation, probably because it is typically being brought up, as it was here, by somebody arguing that "science rules and everything else is nonsense". I apologize if that caused some confusion, but I think we are on the same page now, and have agreed that something can be rational as long as it is based on evidence or logically coherent (i.e., directly observed, deduced from that accepted as fact, or in the case of fuzzy logic, not relied upon to a degree inconsistent with its uncertainty). We agree that this renders the mythology and much of the dogma of organized religion "nonsense".

You ask here for an example, but we've been through this already a couple of times. I provided examples of people with various beliefs and their supporting logic, and described the conditions that would make such a belief rational or non-rational. One example was a guy who, knowing how little we really know about reality (e.g., unknown context of universe and big bang), says he believes there's a god because it's his experience that stable, ordered systems are usually the result of intent (it's just an example). I said somebody else might disagree, because it's their observation that such stable, ordered systems are always sub-systems of chaotic ones, the universe being the largest, and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says entropy is always increasing. The first guy then would say, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is explicitly only applicable to a closed system, and since the context of the universe is undefined, and argument that the Entropy of "all that exists" is always increasing is an argument that the universe is both a closed system and infinite. Etc. etc. The upshot of this example is that this guy's belief is rational to the extent it is supported by observation and logically coherent, and to the extent his reliance on this belief is not out of line with how likely it is. In this case, if we might say it is "somewhat likely" (i.e. not impossible, less than equally likely and unlikely), and if he's not doing something based on this belief that's out of line with something being "somewhat likely", he's being rational.

You don't have to apologize, but apology accepted, etc.

I still have a problem with "logical coherence" and it's because you can have a valid deductive argument (valid structure, which guarantees its conclusion is true, if the premises are true.) but, for the argument to be sound, you need to make sure your premises are true. Now, the point i've been trying to make is that every argument i've read or heard (not from you, but in general) has at least 1 premise that cannot be accepted because it is open to discussion. Even your example, the one that started with the cause, goes back to the "first cause argument" and it's flawed.

Even in your example here, that's an argument from ignorance, the guy in the example is saying "since we don't know something, i'll call it god" and that doesn't make sense (i.e. it is nonsensical). We could say he is being rational because he's trying to think logically about stuff, however his conclusion is still nonsensical.

BoneKracker wrote:

You called it "nonsense", referred to "pseudo-scientific religionists", and the like. I accept your last point, and I withdraw anything I said that indicated you were ridiculing people. I think others who participated in this thread do it regularly, though, and my remarks were not entirely aimed at you.

I did provide examples of those "pseudo-scientific religionists" and, while i see why you might think that's a knee-jerk reaction, there's only so much William Lane Craig and his bible philosophy you can listen to, IMHO.

BoneKracker wrote:

You started off engrossed with the scientific method, saying this sort of thing:

And then made progress and started saying this sort of thing:

While we both know you can't prove or disprove a hypothesis with anything but observation. Then you made further progress:

Then something apparently went *snap* in your head. Now you're quibbling over the difference between a "logical" argument and a "sound" argument, claiming you never meant that satisfying the burden proof as you laid out above meant that something was "sound".

s/theorizing/hypothesizing

1. The scientific method works, independent of how certain we can be about the knowledge we get with it, i would have thought that wasn't open to discussion.

2. You can use mathematics, observation just gives you a higher degree of certainty(this is just so we're clear).

3. A logical deductive argument can be valid and a valid argument can be sound, there are no difference between "logical" and "sound" arguments, the latter is an attribute of the former. This is one of the things i still think you don't get or i'm not getting where you're trying to get.

BoneKracker wrote:

Another strawman. Again: I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said or some bastardization of it that you think you can effectively argue against. If you'd actually like clarification of what I said, let me know.

That would be nice, yeah, i'd like that clarification. Mainly, what do you mean when you say "in my experience, nearly everyone"? is it "nearly everyone that you know of" or that "your experience tells you nearly everyone in general", that's what i don't get.

BoneKracker wrote:

Okay, I'd say your cognitive dissonance comes from believing (on page 2 or whatever) that anything which cannot be proved by evidence and the testing of a hypothesis (an obvious reference to the scientific method) is "nonsense", and then seeing the light and realizing that rational human thought frequently involves uncertainty and can be "justified" merely by a "compelling argument" or "logic", which may even be fuzzy logic.

This is one example where i don't know if you are not getting what i'm saying or what. Justification and evidence are the same thing, i'm just using the term justification because you seem to equate evidence with science, maybe because you're forgetting the legal burden of proof (for example) also requires evidence.

Another sticking point, for me, is you misunderstanding what a compelling logical argument is and how that constitutes justification for a belief. A person having a religious belief, 8 out of 10 people if i had to take a guess, will cite faith as their justification and the other 2 will attempt to rationalize it, but, so far, i haven't read or heard a compelling logical argument. The people citing faith have that as their justification and the others, most of the time, always end with "well, i don't know, therefore god" or something similar.

PS: i realize i haven't said this before but i didn't think i had to, justification/evidence is only needed when you make a truth claim (i.e. when you tell someone a is b).

BoneKracker wrote:

I apologize for calling you a bigot (by which I meant that your preceding argument was characteristic of a bigot). I was unjustly lumping you in with some other people in here who have voiced similar arguments. Having reviewed the thread, I see that you didn't actually belittle, malign, or denigrate anybody. So I apologize for using that word and I take it back.

However, I do want to point out that the primary reason that I, an atheist, get on people's cases about using generalizations like "religion" and "creationists" when they ridicule deserving people such as the guy in the article, is because it propagates incorrect beliefs which do result in unjustifiable intolerance and persecution of undeserving people (such as agnostics who don't rely heavily on what limited beliefs they might have about "higher powers" and such) and that herd people into artificial thought constraints (such as causing young people to believe that science has got things pretty much figured out or that the big bang theory explains existence, when the truth is probably closer to us being on the verge of a revelation analogous to the discovery that the Earth is round).

Again, apology accepted, but i don't mind that. What bothers me is how that results in an spaghetti discussion that goes from religion, to philosophy to epistemology to science and that discussion cannot be productive and, after a while, it stops being interesting.

To be honest, in this thread at least, i don't see anybody ridiculing the guy in the OP nor religious people in general. What i see is we, mcgruff/sugar/myself, criticized both the Broun guy and religious belief and, you'll pardon me if you disagree, but i think that's perfectly reasonable. Unless we use critical thinking and criticize ideas, those ideas will never change and that's the problem i have with religion.

So, to summarize, the point we started this discussion with, about how i'm a bigot that ridicules people for believing stuff, is resolved, yeah? The only problem we seem to have is "how can a person justify a belief" (or something to that effect).

Last edited by GabrielYYZ on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Wish I could write quickly like that. Post upon post, expounding, re-expounding, arguing, rebutting, on and on. There's the makings of several dissertation-length works in here.

I sit down to write something and it takes several drafts just to not sound like an idiot. Set it down, then edit, rephrase all those wordy passive phrases, remove all those ill-phrased literary no-ops that don't actually say anything, elide superfluous garbage such as "the reason [this] is [that] is because of...".

Heck, even this post took a couple tries to get the words out. Type it out, no, that's not quite right. Rephrase; better but still not quite there. Eventually I'll get it, for the most part. But dang... It'd take me days, even weeks, to put out the kind of volume you all seem to do with ease in the course of an evening._________________"Full sentences are harder to write. They have verbs." -- Jeff Bezos, in a Fortune profile

Yeah, but your posts actually say something, and usually solve somebody's problem._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban